Mrs. Leila Seth, J.

1. This is an application by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the"), praying that the Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of case and refer for the opinion of this court the following questions of law:

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law on the holding that rule 6B is not applicable to the expenditure of Rs. 19,877

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 19,877 is not disallowable under section 37(3)"

2. Both counsel agree that the figure in the questions has wrongly been incorporated as Rs. 19,877 and it should, in fact, be Rs. 14,877.

3. The relevant assessment year is 1971-72. The total expenditure indicated under the head of miscellaneous expenses was Rs. 19,877. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the entire amount on the ground that it fell under rule 6B and the expenditure incurred on articles of presentation, each exceeding Rs. 50, was not allowable. The details of the expenses were given in annexure B not the assessment order.

4. The assessed appealed and contended that it did business of Rs. 8 crores and, in the course of its business, had given gifts and presents on festivals ,weddings, etc., to its customers. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after noticing the contention of the assessed, allowed the sum of Rs. 14,877 and disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 as pertaining to expenses on whisky, shirts and shoes. The submission of the assessed that the expenses were incurred in the ordinary course of business and were not in the nature of advertisement was accepted, relying on, inter alia, the decision of the Tribunal in ITO v. Bharat Commerce and Industry Ltd. (ITA 445 (Del)/1975-76, order dated December 20, 1976).

5. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal against the order allowing the deduction of Rs. 14,877. The Tribunal was of the clear opinion that the expenditure did not fall under rule 6B of the Income Tax Rules since it was not incurred for advertisement as none of the articles of presentation bore the name of the assessed or had any advertisement value.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

7. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax filed an application under section 256(1) of thefor refereeing the above-mentioned two questions which was rejected on May 20, 1980. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. (R. A. Nos. 1496 and 1497 (Delhi) of 1975-76 and 445 (Delhi) of 1975-76 pertaining to the assessment year 1973-74, where a similar question sough to be referred had been rejected, and for the reasons recorded therein, refused to refer the two questions indicated above.

8. We are informed that no application under section 256(2) of thewas moved by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the order passed in Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. However, for the subsequent year 1974-75, in Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd., a question was sought to be raised as follows:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 25,000 paid by the assessed as gifts and presents to undisclosed persons was incidental to the business hence allowable"

9. The Tribunal rejected this application under section 256(1) of thefor the same reasons as pertained to the assessment year 1973-74. An application under section 256(2) of thewas filed being Income Tax Case No. 143 of 1983. On December 19, 1984, this court refused to refer this question.

10. Rule 6B deals with expenditure on presentation of articles pertaining to advertisement. The Tribunal has given a categorical finding, after perusing annexure B to the Income Tax Officers order, that none of the gifts and presents indicated therein fall in the category of "advertisement", as they do not bear the name of the assessed nor do they have any advertisement value. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had found that the expenditure on articles of presentation were allowable, as gifts have to be presented on festivals, weddings, etc., to customers. This finding of fact has been confirmed by the Tribunal.

11. Consequently, we do not find any question of law arising for reference to this court for its opinion. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, we make no order a s to costs.

12. Petition dismissed.